Announcements and newcomers
Knowledge Graph Conference
ora: Got a Q about RDF-star - request for what's going on.
olaf: shorter version of Lotico event
rivettp: There session on GQL and OSI.
… is there unification of work going on?
pchampin: GQL is following a different track.
AndyS: the process is partially responsible of that
… the ISO process makes it hard to share with the public
rivettp: many people at the conference were asking about RDF-star
… the seem to expect it to help a convergence between the two worlds
AndyS: not sure people expect "convergence"
rivettp: [something about data interoperability]
ora: Interesting results of EKGC survey - interoperation a priority
… very positive for standardization
… least important "no code" tools.
<AndyS> PR 167
AndyS: updated SPARQL grammar to allow << ... >> in expressions
… and add corresponding negative test cases
… and a short section describing how to evaluate these expressions (refering to TRIPLE(...))
<gkellogg> +1 to merge
AndyS: ready to merge in a few days
pchampin: other actions?
… semantics PR in-progress
Moving to standard track
pchampin: Summary of email: W3C suggests starting the chartering process soon as possible.
… flow from CG(-like) to WG
… do not give impression that the WG is a rubber stamp
… Q1 : Are we OK with that?
thomas: Who will participate?
(This is a W3C process question not specific to this WG)
pchampin: W3C member organisations nominate individuals.
phcampin: we can help with the charter text
… and we need chairs
ora: WG may have invited experts
gkellogg: IE at chairs' discretion
… not bypass your own W3C member org
… CG stands on its own. We will have a final report.
… (about another WG) ...
jbollema: Do we need two WGs? - one for RDF, one for SPARQL.
AndyS: in the past, some WG have modified other WG's documents
… there is a preference to have less WGs
pchampin: Both would be in scope - will check.
<ora> (Are we not using the queue anymore...?)
gkellog: Charter will list docs in-scope.
ora: Original RDF, RDFS got combined.
ora: There will be a delay - chartering, ramp up, IP review
<thomas> are we talking months?
pchampin: because it will take time, is one reason to start chartering soon. And CG can continue while process proceeds.
<AndyS> thomas - yes
<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to say it's all about the charter
TallTed: Qs: "CG" input can taken at the point of WG-start-up. Wording in charter.
… concern is this RDF 1.2, fork, RDF 2.
<gatemezing> +1 to TallTed on using the input of this work for the next WG
AndyS: there are RDF systems not supporting bnodes
… we can live with RDF systems not supporting embedded triples.
… The important point is that what we propose does not invalidated existing data.
<james> .. but ... it will invalidate applications
gkellogg: Not so much an either/or -- RDF 1.1 has generalized RDF graph.
… key is updating docs for abstract syntax or in "generalized" abstraction
… AZ mentioned quoted graphs
ora: concern what does this do to the wider community
… we should pay attention to the adoption and presentation
AndyS: Would chartering avoid implementers submit implementation reports
… hope to make internal implementors experiments public.
… so that we can learn of it.
pchampin: implementation reports might look like we just want to rubber stamp the existing spec
AndyS: this can be turned into something positive
… implementation reports will inform the charter
thomas: who writes the charter?
pchampin: Usually W3C team member who will be team contact. Wide review and revision.
… general agreement this is the way forward.
<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: let's write a charter draft
<jbollema> +1 for starting on a charter for a WG.
Action: pchampin to create a repo for the charter
<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: have a call next week
<jbollema> bye and thanks